Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in other protocols

From: Vern Paxson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 23:36:36 -0800

> In the *particular* case of *this* (9 month
> old) group it appears to have been decided that the work of the group is
> either finished

No, definitely not finished.

> or not possible under the current charter.

Not exactly, but better focussed under a different charter.

> And why are the views of contributors not sought on this? That, I
> guess, is (are) the question(s).

A significant part of charters concerns scoping efforts so that they can
make useful progress without either ratholing or being too confined.  It
is rare that general discussions of scope are fruitful when conducted on
a public mailing list, particularly one with a bumpy history concerning
decorum and staying on topic (such as ASRG).

My next message announces the new charter.

		Vern

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: "Denny Figuerres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 11:08:44 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Vern Paxson
> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 2:37 AM
> To: Jon Kyme
> Cc: ASRG
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Re: Why SPAM is worse in SMTP than in 
> other protocols
> 
> > old) group it appears to have been decided that the work of 
> the group 
> > is either finished
> 
> A significant part of charters concerns scoping efforts so 
> that they can make useful progress without either ratholing 
> or being too confined.  It is rare that general discussions 
> of scope are fruitful when conducted on a public mailing 
> list, particularly one with a bumpy history concerning 
Vern, I'd say IMHO that the "Bumby history" and related has a lot to do with
the problem we are trying to wrangle.
This whole area is one that can generate a kind of "Virtual Road Rage" in
the best of us :-)

Personaly I'd say that the word "SPAM" in and of it's self is a problem.

Perhaps the group could be renamed and chartered as more of a
"Finding methods and solutions to deal with current problems in email"
Now that's to vague and open but the idea is drop the SPAM and replace it
with
What I think we want to realy do.... 
My interest here is that persons and groups are using SMTP to send unwanted
messages.
That often the messages are deceptive and hide the sender's identity.
That it is very difficult for the average user to make the sender stop.
That the volume of this kind of message is creating issues for operators of
mail servers.
That we need to have a way of establishing a "chain of trust" that the
average user can rely on to stop the unwanted messages.
What I mean by chain of trust in general is that if the email says it's from
server a on behalf of user x@domain y that this be generaly true and if user
x keeps up that server 'a' and domain 'y' are both accountable to the
reciver to different degrees. If I can't get x@domain y to stop then I
should still be able to tell domain 'a' about the problem and get them to
stop acting as a relay.  Perfered is to go back to the 'x' who started the
mess.

Notice that I have described the problem with out the use of the words
"Advertising, Commercial,Bulk, SPAM" and such....
I think in the end there will always be some level of "Junk mail" in the
system... Just not so DARN MUCH!!!!